Court : Mumbai
TABLE OF CONTENTS A. PARTIES AND THE LITIGATION HISTORY..................... 3 B. THE WILL DATED 10TH AUGUST 2002 ........................... 5 C. THE CAVEAT and AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT........................ 6 D. ISSUES ................................................................................... 7 E. THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD............................................ 8 F. RE: ISSUES NOS. 1 AND 2.................................................. 10 G. RE: ISSUE NO. 3 ...................................................................17 H. RE: ISSUE NO. 3A................................................................ 23 I. CONCLUSION and ORDER................................................... 28 A. PARTIES AND THE LITIGATION HISTORY 1. Jaswantbhai Natwarlal Jolia ( Jaswantbhai ) died on 26th January 2004 (Ex. A in evidence, Vol. D, p. 224).He left a Will dated 10th August 2002 (Copy at Ex. B in evidence, Vol. D, pp. 225-226. Original deposited in Court).The Plaintiff, Panna S. Me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant (original defendant) has impugned the judgment and decree dated 9th January, 2013 passed by the learned District Judge 5, Pune, allowing the appeal (Civil Appeal No.102 of 2007) filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Special Civil Suit No.113 of 1994 dated 20th November, 2006 and partly allowing the said suit. 2. The learned District Judge 5, Pune directed the appellant (original defendant) to deliver possession of 4 Khan premises situated at second floor, CTS No.212, Nana Peth, Pune to the original plaintiffs on or before 15th April, 2015 and directed the defendant to deliver the symbolic possession of the share of Godubai to the extent of half share. 3. The first appellate Court also declared that the plaintiffs had acquired the right, title and interest in the suit prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Gupte, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( Tribunal ) has referred the following question of law for our consideration: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Act ? 2. The Assessment Year is 1979-80. 3. For the subject assessment year, the assessee claimed weighted deduction on expenditure amounting to Rs.5,36,77,345/- incurred by it on items enumerated in Section 35B of the Act. Section 35B provides for export markets development allowance, allowing weighted deduction in a sum equal to one and one-third times the amount of expenditure incurred for various export related activities enumerated in clause (1)(a) of Section 35B during the previous year by a domestic company. 4. The case of the assessee is that by an agreement dated 18 June 1977, entered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. By means of this writ petition filed by the friend of the detenu, the detention order passed by respondent No.2 District Magistrate, Jalgaon, under The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 is being challenged. Respondent No.2 by the detention order dated 16.3.2016 ordered the detention of the detenu Nilesh Dnyaneshwar Desale to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintainance of public order. 2. From the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu, it is apparent that the detention order is based on 4 C.Rs and two in-camera statements. The 4 CRs are C.R. Nos.166 of 2010, 134 of 2015, 135 of 2015 and 21 of 2016. All the 4 CRs are of Bhadgaon police station in Jalgaon. C.R. No.166 of 2010 is under sections 353, 379, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. C.R....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the decision of Respondent No.1 in rejecting the techno-commercial bid of the Petitioners in relation to the tender (dated 20th January, 2016) floated for the supply of Bivalent Oral Polio Vaccine Bulk [ bOPV ] manufactured by a Company called PT. Bio-Farma, Indonesia. The rejection of the Petitioners' techno-commercial bid was informed to them by Respondent No.1 vide its letter dated 22nd June, 2016 [the impugned letter ] (Exh. I to the Petition). Consequently, the Petitioners have also prayed that Respondent No.1 be directed to revoke / cancel the tender / contract awarded to Respondent No.3 (BioNet-Asia Co. Ltd.) for the supply of the said bOPV. 3. In a nutshell, the tender process has been challenged before us on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. I have before me a Company Scheme Petition for sanction. One Systema Shyam Teleservices Limited ( SSTL ) is the Transferor company. The Transferee company is the present Petitioner Reliance Communications Limited ( RCom ). One of SSTL s undertakings is proposed to be demerged from it and vested in RCom on the appointed date. SSTL s registered office is in Jaipur. SSTL therefore made a corresponding application to the Rajasthan High Court at its Jaipur bench. The Rajasthan High Court allowed SSTL s petition by an elaborate judgment dated 30th September 2016. 2. The rationale of the Scheme is set out in this voluminous record (Record, p. 720).The ostensible purpose, at least as far as RCom is concerned, is to facilitate its expansion in the telecom market, develop its infrastructure, create additional value for its shareholders and to achieve improved efficiencies in its operations. The expression transferred undertaking is separately and specifically defined. This is a comprehensive ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. All the aforesaid appeals, except criminal appeal No.945 of 2005, are filed by the accused challenging judgment dated 9th May, 2005 in Criminal Case Nos.107 of 2004 and 176 of 2004 whereby the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, convicted for offences under Section 302, 536, 436, 342, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 120 B of the IPC and sentenced the abovementioned accused as under: 2. The accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 34, 36, 37 and 41 are convicted for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 506 r/w. 149, 342 r/w. 149, 436 r/w. 149, 302 r/w. 149 and 427 r/w. 149 of the IPC and sentenced as under: (i) Rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months for the offence punishable under section 143 of the IPC. (ii) rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months for the offence punishable under section 147 of the IPC. (iii) rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months for the offence punishable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Having regard to the nature of the challenge raised made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 16.08.2016 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court, Thane, by which order, the Revision Application filed by the Respondent being Revision Application (ULP) No.28 of 2016 came to be allowed. Resultantly, the order dated 20.07.2015 passed by the Labour Court came to be set aside and in place thereof directions as contained in clause 2 of the operative part of the said order came to be issued. The said clause 2 is reproduced hereinunder for the sake of ready reference. 2. Exh.U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No.152/2014 allowed in following terms: (i) Respondents shall pay Rs.10,000/- for each group of employee within one month from the date of this order. 3. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details. Suffice it would be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is taking an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 08.07.2016, passed by the Additional Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Municipal Election Petition No.87 of 2012. By the said Judgment and Order, the election of the petitioner, dated 17.02.2012 from Ward No.156 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation was declared as null and void. At the same time, respondent No.3 herein was declared as elected from the said ward under the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MMC Act'). 2. Certain facts are not in dispute. The petitioner herein has contested the election for the post of councillor from Ward No.156 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, from a constituency reserved for Other Backward Class Community (hereinafter referred to as the 'OBC'). The result of the election was declared on 17.02.2012. The petitioner was declared...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard Dr. Milind Sathe, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant in Appeal (L) No. 162 of 2016, Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant in Appeal (L) No. 245 of 2016 and Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.5 in Appeal (L) No.162 of 2016 and for Respondent No.2 in Appeal (L) No.245 of 2016. 2. Appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21/03/2016, by which the learned Single Judge was pleased to direct the Court Receiver who was appointed in respect of the mortgaged properties to hand over the same to the Respondent Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited [For short ARCIL ]. The learned Single Judge has imposed costs of Rs 10 lakhs and issued contempt notice against the Appellants herein. Since the order challenged in both these Appeals is common, we propose to give a common judgment in both these Appeals. F...
Tag this Judgment!